Brexit - or Article 50: the Phoenix!

[MegaSteve]

Furious tirade from Anna Soubry at Jacob Rees-Mogg yesterday in the HoC - and she was absolutely spot on. That guy and the rest of his ERG cronies seem hell-bent on getting the UK out of the EU regardless of the economic or social damage that will result (see also John Major - someone who might know a fair bit about Euroscepticism; the EU and such things) - and damage there will inevitably be.

Even if absolutely nothing else - on leaving the EU the UK will lose the economic and social benefits of the free-trade deal the EU yesterday struck with Japan. Whether the UK over time will strike a trade deal with Japan more beneficial to us than that struck yesterday who knows - but whatever the deal might be, that deal is going to take some time to agree and so meanwhile we will be worse off in our trade with Japan.

John flippin' MAJOR :angry::angry::angry:....
You're having a proper giraffe citing him for anything other than treason...

Probably the true architect of delivering us up muddy creek without a paddle...

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Trade deals are never simple. IIRC from my economics classes, an average trade deal can take up to 7 years (Vague memory so may be wrong on this)

I was simplifying things a little but actually they don't need to be overly complicated if you have two parties who both want to deal. If you take dealing with the EU you have to satisfy 28 countries, all wanting their key items to be included in a deal. That is difficult.

If you take the UK doing a deal with Japan it is far more straightforward, 1 country dealing with 1 country, both wanting a similar end result. Shouldn't be too hostile, we already have good trade between the two countries.

I appreciate the detail can be devilish but if you can take a template of an existing deal and amend it then the time needed should be reduced. I do fully accept it would not be sorted over a cup of tea, it may take a full pot

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

John flippin' MAJOR :angry::angry::angry:....
You're having a proper giraffe citing him for anything other than treason...

Probably the true architect of delivering us up muddy creek without a paddle...

I guessed of such scoffing about John Major - but say what you want about him - he understands the EU as well if not better than anyone. And that is the point. He actually understands these things and understands the implications of leaving.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

And Cameron spent £9m immediately before the campaign started, leafleting every household but got away with it because it was before the official start date.

Pots and kettles

Well Cameron stated the government's position - he would not want to state and encourage the opposing viewpoint - one that he felt would be extremely damaging to the country.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

The Sourbry tirade it great if you agree with her point of view. If you believe that the UK should leave the EU as per the vote that her tirade was just that.

Trade deal with Japan - You constantly forget that a deal is a reciprocal thing. If Japan want better access to our markets, by crikey they do, they need a deal as much as we do. It is a two way thing. Japan will be keen to deal with us after Brexit as it is a market they are established in and can see the benefits of selling more to us. Should be pretty simple.

I might suggest that Japanese manufacturers in the UK are largely here because we are in the EU. I do not know what percentage of the Japanese goods that we buy in the UK are manufactured in the UK or elsewhere in the EU. And if we leave the EU with No Deal then I would have thought the economics of that manufacturing and import/export to/from the EU countries would chnage.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

I might suggest that Japanese manufacturers in the UK are largely here because we are in the EU. I do not know what percentage of the Japanese goods that we buy in the UK are manufactured in the UK or elsewhere in the EU. And if we leave the EU with No Deal then I would have thought the economics of that manufacturing and import/export to/from the EU countries would chnage.

Quite possibly although the UK market for Japanese cars is significant and surprisingly enough a large number of cars from the Nissan plant are exported back to Japan, strange but true. The UK govt bung them a 'grant' every year, they certainly do to Nissan, so whether they stay or go will be interesting.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Quite possibly although the UK market for Japanese cars is significant and surprisingly enough a large number of cars from the Nissan plant are exported back to Japan, strange but true. The UK govt bung them a 'grant' every year, they certainly do to Nissan, so whether they stay or go will be interesting.

Indeed - but nobody knows. And so there remains a risk that Nissan might just 'lift and shift' (though maybe not quite) from Sunderland to somewhere else in the EU27.

Is the government going to be bunging everyone a grant to encourage them to stay? I suppose they could and that would be one of the benefits of being 'back in control' - of 'regaining our sovereignty'. We'd be free to bribe manufacturers to stay in the UK without the EU telling us we are breaking rules and that we can't do that.

Though I must find out what WTO rules say in respect of grants (bribes).

Meanwhile back in the land still referred to as 'Project Fear' (as few Leavers dare speak it's true name). Dairy products ... well I suppose it would encourage me to cut down on them.

Of course there will be no queues or delays at the ports in any case. So nothing to see here, I no doubt will be told. And so I will just add Arla Foods to the ever lengthening list 'What the ERG knows more about than the Producers and Manufacturers'

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...oducts-may-become-luxuries-after-uk-leaves-eu

But lest we just ignore this story - from the AHDB report

There is also the issue of the time required for negotiating new trade deals, which could hamper industry growth
if negotiations are protracted. With limited opportunities to grow domestic markets, particularly if lack of free
movement of EU workers reduces population growth, barriers to EU exports could hit investment levels. In this
context, it is worth remembering that the largest dairy companies in the UK are foreign-owned.

Fake News - Project Fear...

 

[Hobbit]

But we agree that it broke no rules?

So, at best, the Leave campaign was stupid? At worst?

Well Cameron stated the government's position - he would not want to state and encourage the opposing viewpoint - one that he felt would be extremely damaging to the country.

And you both are playing with semantics. I voted Remain too, and would rush to the polling booth again to do the same thing. Cameron took advantage of the start date and put the Remain’s view out before that date knowing he was spending £9m of everyone’s money, not just Remainers, on the politics of the vote.

Did he break the law? No. Is he in breach of ‘natural justice,’ which forms the root of British law? Absolutely!

If you two two want to hide behind that, crack on but it’s a blinkered/jaundiced view.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Nissan might jump at any time, in the EU or not. We have a good deal of Nissan news up here, as you would expect. Once a year they talk about moving production, putting new lines in elsewhere in Europe where they have plants. The govt miraculously offers them a training grant from nowhere and they announce that they will stay. It has been going on for years. The risk for them lifting and shifting is the same as it ever has been.

The govt has already stated to the auto industry that it will get special treatment in a not so secret meeting. Grants all round. I've no doubt my own company will get the same generous offer when the time comes to it, yeah, right.

Grants for multi nationals setting up have been going for years in all countries. It happens throughout the EU right now. You can dress it up in other ways but govts offer inducements for companies to set up in their own countries, rules or no rules.

 

[bluewolf]

And you both are playing with semantics. I voted Remain too, and would rush to the polling booth again to do the same thing. Cameron took advantage of the start date and put the Remain’s view out before that date knowing he was spending £9m of everyone’s money, not just Remainers, on the politics of the vote.

Did he break the law? No. Is he in breach of ‘natural justice,’ which forms the root of British law? Absolutely!

If you two two want to hide behind that, crack on but it’s a blinkered/jaundiced view.

I'm the very last person to defend Cameron. History will likely judge him as the worst PM to (dis)grace the office. Did the Government break election rules? I don't think they did. They may have deliberately circumvented them several months before the referendum though.

The Leave campaign overspent in the days leading up to the referendum. Did it influence the outcome? I don't know really, but if it didn't then someone should tell the Political Parties this as they've apparently been wasting millions all these years!!!

 

[Deleted member 1418]

Though I must find out what WTO rules say in respect of grants (bribes).

There you go - happy reading!

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/scm_e/scm_e.htm

 

[MegaSteve]

I wish folk would make up their mind on who's 'ploy' swung the vote...
I thought it was all down to Putin's interference...
Or, was that the POTUS vote ..
Or, was it in fact neither...

What swung it for me was St Bob yelling RACISTS, down a megaphone, at ordinary working people...
Plus any number of folk saying "Lazy British workers"...

 

[bluewolf]

I wish folk would make up their mind on who's 'ploy' swung the vote...
I thought it was all down to Putin's interference...
Or, was that the POTUS vote ..
Or, was it in fact neither...

What swung it for me was St Bob yelling RACISTS, down a megaphone, at ordinary working people...
Plus any number of folk saying "Lazy British workers"...

Have you not seen where the overspend went?

 

[MegaSteve]

Have you not seen where the overspend went?

Truthfully no... But I think you guessed that...

But I reserve getting my gunties in the proverbial twist over 'stuff' like 'us' having to pick up the BHS pension shortfall whilst [Sir] Phil gets to sail the Med on his superyacht... Marvellous example of wealth creator he turned out to be...

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

And you both are playing with semantics. I voted Remain too, and would rush to the polling booth again to do the same thing. Cameron took advantage of the start date and put the Remain’s view out before that date knowing he was spending £9m of everyone’s money, not just Remainers, on the politics of the vote.

Did he break the law? No. Is he in breach of ‘natural justice,’ which forms the root of British law? Absolutely!

If you two two want to hide behind that, crack on but it’s a blinkered/jaundiced view.

I would agree with you on this but how on earth could the government put forward the alternative case when it didn't believe it (ooops - now where am I hearing that these days ) and indeed thought it would be disastrous for the UK economy. Is the governments job not to do what it considers best for the UK? Would the government making the Leave case not be a bit like the Directors of a PLC doing things that they believe would be detrimental to shareholder value - like accepting a take-over bid that, in their best estimation and analysis, and given the advice of all their advisors and the market analysts, would be damaging to the company. They are simply not allowed to do that.

 

[Blue in Munich]

Furious tirade from Anna Soubry at Jacob Rees-Mogg yesterday in the HoC - and she was absolutely spot on. That guy and the rest of his ERG cronies seem hell-bent on getting the UK out of the EU regardless of the economic or social damage that will result (see also John Major - someone who might know a fair bit about Euroscepticism; the EU and such things) - and damage there will inevitably be.

Even if absolutely nothing else - on leaving the EU the UK will lose the economic and social benefits of the free-trade deal the EU yesterday struck with Japan. Whether the UK over time will strike a trade deal with Japan more beneficial to us than that struck yesterday who knows - but whatever the deal might be, that deal is going to take some time to agree and so meanwhile we will be worse off in our trade with Japan.

Why will we; if we now enjoy the tariff free trade deal negotiated by the EU why can we not agree with Japan to keep that when we leave the EU?

 

[bluewolf]

Truthfully no... But I think you guessed that...

But I reserve getting my gunties in the proverbial twist over 'stuff' like 'us' having to pick up the BHS pension shortfall whilst [Sir] Phil gets to sail the Med on his superyacht... Marvellous example of wealth creator he turned out to be...

I have enough disgust to go around 👍

 

[Dando]

Why will we; if we now enjoy the tariff free trade deal negotiated by the EU why can we not agree with Japan to keep that when we leave the EU?

because he said so and it suits his doom and gloom outlook.

 

[Hobbit]

I would agree with you on this but how on earth could the government put forward the alternative case when it didn't believe it (ooops - now where am I hearing that these days ) and indeed thought it would be disastrous for the UK economy. Is the governments job not to do what it considers best for the UK? Would the government making the Leave case not be a bit like the Directors of a PLC doing things that they believe would be detrimental to shareholder value - like accepting a take-over bid that, in their best estimation and analysis, and given the advice of all their advisors and the market analysts, would be damaging to the company. They are simply not allowed to do that.

I would expect the govt to put forward a case as they see fit. But my argument, which you seem to have missed, is the timing of the govt’s case. Cameron authorised the spending of £9m before the start date of campaigning.

He didn’t break the law but by hell he bent it to some tune.

 

[NWJocko]

I would agree with you on this but how on earth could the government put forward the alternative case when it didn't believe it (ooops - now where am I hearing that these days ) and indeed thought it would be disastrous for the UK economy. Is the governments job not to do what it considers best for the UK? Would the government making the Leave case not be a bit like the Directors of a PLC doing things that they believe would be detrimental to shareholder value - like accepting a take-over bid that, in their best estimation and analysis, and given the advice of all their advisors and the market analysts, would be damaging to the company. They are simply not allowed to do that.

No, it would be absolutely nothing like that :thup: